Here’s yet another blackjack question. What I am after here is mathematical proof that my “system” is better, worse, or just the same as any other system.
I typically only play 2 or 3 deck games, so let’s consider just that scenario. I don’t know why, but I have always had better luck with my system with 2 or 3 deck games.
OK, let’s say I play a perfect strategy, that is, I hit when I should, stay when I should, etc. What are the odds I will lose the hand? What are the odds I will lose 2 hands in a row? What are the odds I will lose 3 hands in a row? And so on…
I have always used a modified-martingale system for wagering on blackjack. I haven’t kept track if I have won more than I have lost (probably not), but I have had some great winning streaks with this system.
So here’s my strategy. Let’s say I sit at a $5 table, I play $5 per hand until I lose 3 hands in a row. Then I double my bet to $10, win or lose I double it again to $20, win or lose I step back to $10 until I lose a hand, then back to $5 and start the system over again.
I actually get bored to death playing this strategy, because I am sitting there waiting to do my wager-progression most of the time. But when it’s working in my favor, I sure get a lot of attention at the table (unwanted attention, especially from pit bosses).
The odds are slightly greater that you will lose the hand. Probably around 53% or so (I used to know the number, but I can’t remember). You lose more hands than you win, because when you win you occasionally win 3-2 (blackjack). Since the house’s edge is slightly under 1%, you would lose slightly more than 51% of your hands, as a guess.
But call it 50% for making the math easier. The odds of losing two in a row are then 25%. Three in a row is 17.5%. Four in a row is 8.75%. Etc.
All you need to know about your ‘system’ is that it will never change the house odds. The casino will make roughly 1% X the amount of money you put into action. It doesn’t matter if you put it all down on one hand, or bet a little on a lot of hands, or bet it in a progression, or whatever.
All that systems do is change the distribution of wins and losses. Martingale systems give you lots of little wins, punctuated by huge losses. Reverse Martingales give you lots of little loses, punctuated by huge wins. You can take any system you can possibly dream up, and you can make some pretty complex functions to describe the distribution of wins and losses. But they all share one thing in common - as you continue to play, your wins and losses will converge on the house average. There is no getting around this, short of learning how to count cards.
In theory, what I am trying to do with my system is bet more when the odds are in my favor.
Essentially it breaks down to this:
I play a regular game until I lose 3 in a row. After losing 3 in a row, the odds are definitely in my favor. I then double my bet. Then win or lose, I am going to double my bet again, because the odds should still be in my favor (odds of losing 4 out of 5 or 5 out of 5). Then win or lose, I’m going to back down to $10 and stay at $10 until I lose, then go back to where I started at $5. It just seems to me I am increasing my bet when the odds are in my favor, which should be a good thing.
I know nothing whatsoever about blackjack so I’ll ask why you believe the odds are in your favour when you’ve lost a couple of times? Surely each hand is entirely independent of any that precede or follow it? Explain to a total novice, please;).
Huh? I think you misunderstand basic statistics. Your odds of winning are 50% no matter what hand you play. it doesn’t matter if you’re on a losing or winning streak. Your odds of winning at each individual hand is exactly the same as any other hand barring that you learn how to count cards.
Losing 3 hands in a row does NOT affect the odds of winning or losing the next hand. Each individual hand carries with it an approximately 50% chance of winning, there is no getting around this barring card counting.
I don’t see how the odds are ever in your favor, ever. Of course I might just have gotten wooshed…
As people have said, the kind of “system” that doubles the bet after a loss, or some variation on that, is hogwash, and well-known to be so (but it surfaces time and time again). And I suspect that the OP is just expressing a common fallacy when he says that the odds are with him after three losses. With that said, and at the risk of confusing the non-careful, I’ll point out that in blackjack (unlike, say, roulette or craps) there is a very small negative correlation between hands. This is the case because when there is not an intervening shuffle they are not independent. A win for the player means that cards that are good for the player are more likely to have come out of the deck, leaving an unfavorable deck composition on average. The real way to take advantage of this is of course to count.
Each hand is not an independent trial. For instance, if you are playing single deck, and in the previous round 4 aces were shown, there is a 0% chance of anyone getting a blackjack for the rest of the deck.
This thread got me thinking: Assuming you’re playing a perfect basic strategy, and a deck is allowed sufficient penetration before a reshuffle, I think it’s possible that previous losses might increase the probability, however slight, of future wins. Since the elimination of low cards is in the player’s favor, it stands to reason that a string of previous losses has an increased probability of creating a rich deck, thus increasing the probability of future wins. While it’s probably not practically actionable, it might be theoretically true. Hopefully Sam Stone will check in to tell me if I’m wrong here.
Also, Harmonix - ccwaterback is clearly a card counter. He/she (sorry, i forget) knows when the odds are in his favor on the table. That’s why the preferred game is 2-3 decks, easier to count.
Like KidCharlemagne asked, “where the hell are you finding a 3 deck game?”
And not only your losses but those of the players around you. And the dealer. To be a profitable player via counting one must be able to track the entire table. This is where the odds can drift slightly in the players favor.
You aren’t saying you’re counting the cards. But you’re acting as if you are (what’s the point in counting the decks unless you’re counting cards?). The reason the pit bosses are giving you the eye is your betting pattern resembles the way card counters bet.
If you’re not counting cards and are just playing each hand individually keep your bets steady. Changing the amount you bet on each hand will have no effect on your winnings and losings, unless you’re counting cards.
If there are seven other players at the table, and they are all drawing tens while you lose a hand, their combined effect far outweighs the ill-defined and very slight effect of “losing cards” on your hand contributing to a better card count.
I disagree with it (not with Uncommon Sense too much, b/c he is advocating counting cards)!
If you’re not counting cards, you could just be having bad luck, getting 4 or 5 card busts and not a 10 card in sight anywhere on the table; or, more likely, you’re getting 3 card busts with 10s everywhere which would more than likely result in a negative count. Why would you increase your bet when the count is negative?
To the OP The chances of you winning each hand is something like 44% which I saw on some dude’s web site, or in Peter Griffith’s book, Theory of Blackjack. I couldn’t remember if that’s first hand played, how many decks, or count neutral. I think it was 2 deck, first hand played (or count neutral). If you want to know, my last BJ session despite a huge net win (like just under $4k – not including those gravy comps) I had lost almost $600 losing something like 9 hands in a row (hey, count was positive). I think my all time hands lost in a row is 12.
Someone smarter in math than I will have to work out the probability of losing x many hands in a row.
I agree with Sam Stone and Kama45 that a) you’re still going to lose, probably slower, but still lose nonetheless; and b) martingale, in any incarnation is a joke. It’s a system, designed to make you lose money slower. Worst of all, you are still open to the variance that plagues positive expectation value counting systems.
True, elimination of low cards is in the players favor. However it does *not * stand to reason that a string of previous losses (or wins) increases the possibility of a rich deck. Just because you won or loss say, three games in a row, doesn’t mean that those hands necessarily contained more or less low cards.
The only way to know what those deals contained is, of course, to count. Just assuming that a winning or losing streak is making the count higher or lower won’t work.
**KidCharlemagne ** wrote:
There are 2 deck games all over the place. Of course there are single deck games too. But the penetration is so poor that they aren’t very countable at all. Still, people think they are countable and that’s why casinos love them. The house expectation on such games is pretty big (upwards of 1%) because the table rules are generally poor. (Possibly including: dealer hits soft 17, no double after split, double 9,10,11 only, no re-splitting aces and often these days 6-5 or even 2-1 payout for Blackjack.)
**Little Nemo ** wrote:
No, actually he’s acting as if he’s playing a modified Martingale–which he is. The reason he’s getting attention from the pit is because someone passed the word, “Hey check it out!Some poor schmuck’s completely going Martingale over on table 5!” :wally
I assure you, Martingaling 5 and 10 dollar hands will generate about as much pit heat as liquid nitrogen.
“Necessarily” is the key term here. The deck being rich with tens doesn’t mean the player will necessarily win either, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an increased probability. If you’re willing to say that a deck with more low cards is correlated with player losses, then it’s reasonable to assume that probability favorsthat a string of losses included an inordinate amount of low cards, leaving the deck rich. Once again, this isn’t “necessarily” the case, but we’re talking probabilties here. Like I said, I would really doubt such “counting” is actionable, just a theoretical point.
That’s not been my experience. I used to play single deck in Nevada all the time. The only unfavorable rule was dealer hits soft 17, which is about a 0.2% disadvantage to the player. That pales in comparison to the disadvantage of a large number of decks, which is about 0.6% (more decks is bad even for the non-counter; it changes things because you’re drawing without replacement).
